+1 on point three. Please do something to the string to make it clear that
svnversion wasn't used. "1234 (svn info)", e.g.
rjrjr

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Freeland Abbott <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Sorry for the lag...
>
>    1. Why'd you specify branch & revision as transient?  Not clearly
>    wrong, just seems unnecessary.
>    2. You're changing the branch output from my "just the last term" spec
>    to "full branch path from repo root," right?  That's surely more correctly
>    complete, but may make the tag a bit unwieldy.  It's got some ripple 
> effects
>    in other tools we have, if we're changing spec.  (I don't feel strongly,
>    though I'd originally take the last-term as "almost surely unique" and
>    mildly more usable.)
>    3. Making svnversion optional doesn't distress me (and I assume git
>    can't offer it), but it does potentially allow people to misrepresent 
> builds
>    as being rNNN, when they're actually arbitrary local mods from NNN, perhaps
>    including split-version checkouts, but certainly including local edits.  Do
>    we want the imprecision recorded somehow, if svnversion isn't present?
>     (This isn't entirely theoretical; both Ray and Joel have accidentally had
>    mixed-version workspaces, though only by branch-info.txt being off-base
>    w.r.t. the rest.)
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hey Freeland,
>> I hacked on SvnInfo a bit to do the following things:
>>
>> 1) If .svn/ isn't present but .git/ is, use "git svn info".
>>
>> 2) A more surefire way of figuring out exactly what branch we're on.  Note
>> the behavior change for a release branch: whereas before you'd get 
>> "1...@4444"
>> you'll now get "releases/1...@4444".  To me this seems like an
>> improvement.
>>
>> 3) Make svnserve's success optional; use whatever rev you got from "svn
>> info" if it doesn't run.  I don't feel strongly about this bit, just thought
>> it might be okay to be more lenient.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Scott
>>
>>
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to